So expectations for JVR are at the high end 50-60 points for 4.25m/year. Do you expect Nash to get more than 70 for 7.8m/year? Because those 10-20 extra points just cost you 3.5m/year. That's almost paying 2 JVR's for roughly the production of one.

Not to mention Nash is 28 and JVR just turned 23 I believe. Plus Nash is likely to cost you more than just JVR.

All things considered, unless Nash immediately turns into an 85-90+ point player in Philadelphia the trade is not worth it.

Odds on that? Slim to none, and even if he accomplishes it a year or two, he won't throughout his contract. JVR is a much better deal.

I really couldn't care less about contracts. There is nothing we can do about them as fans. The Cap is rising dramatically, and 7.8 won't seem as terrible. Still overpaid? Absolutely, never said otherwise. I'm arguing against the clowns who say he's overrated and is nothing better than a 65 pt player, which is preposterous.

Rick Nash was overpaid to be the Captain and face of a bad hockey city. Similar to how we overpaid Danny Briere and Kimmo Timonen to sign in Philly after the franchises worst season ever. Similar to Howson destroying the defensive market last season by signing Wiz to something ridiculous. Then there's that Bryz guy. You can make an argument for Kimmo, and really reach for one for Briere...but those players above will likely never be "worth their cap hit." They're overpaid for a variety of reasons, much like Suter and Parise will be this year. They'll both become the benchmark for top players in the NHL with teams having a $70m spending limit.

Odds of Nash hitting 85-90 pts as soon as he gets planted next to Giroux are slim to none? If you think so, that's your opinion. But this trade gives us a fully developed JvR without the injury issues. Nash has missed 54 games since the lockout. JvR has already missed 51 in his 3 year career. If the asking price is JvR, Mez, and a pick, I jump all over it. And you can go back to allllllllllll the anti-JvR threads, I've ALWAYS preferred to keep him and give him time.

You must be joking. Kovy hit 50 in 05-06 playing with Hossa and Savard. No talent there.

01-04 w/ Heatley
05-08 w/ Hossa
02-06 w/ Savard

Hossa was with Kovy for every year he scored 50. Face it, you're being close-minded and don't have a clue what you're talking about. Kovy is no longer the same goalscorer because he plays with the Devils, in a defensive system. Everyone and their mother knew his stats were going to take a hit when he signed long term with them. Also, I have no problem at all saying Kovalchuk is more talented than Nash, because that's the 100% truth.

Hossa isn't a passing center. Don't change the goal posts.

I forgot about Savard. He scored 50 once with Savard and 50 once without a passing center. He also had 3 other years where he scored 40+. He didn't need a passing center to make him into a great player.

There are plenty of examples of players that are no longer the same goal scorers in their late 20s. It's not just Kovalchuk. Dany Heatley scored 50 goals twice in his mid 20s and is now averaging 25 goals in his early 30s. Ovechkin isn't the same player at the age of 26. Lecavalier hit 50 at the age of 26 and began his decline at 28.

There's no reason to believe that Nash is going to suddenly evolve into a 50 goal scorer at this stage of his career. Most 50 goal scorers are in their early to mid twenties.

Who are you filling the hole with? If Suter doesn't come here who is your #1 defensemen you are getting? How are you getting him and how much does he cost. Next year we have 15 million coming off the books anyway.

It doesn't matter. I'm saying the difference between their contracts is about 3.5m. That money is quite valuable.

I'd rather lose out on Nash, keep JVR, and use that money elsewhere than try to land Nash, who we dont really have need for, and take our chances with the money that's left.

EDIT: It's also more valuable if you consider the fact that JVR could be a 60+ point player soon. It's very possible that Nash will only be a 70 point player even when he gets here. I'm not ready to blow JVR's potential over that.

He's older and has to share more minutes, including those vital PP minutes.

Which is exactly what would happen to Nash here.

And he plays in a defensive system. That can't be denied. He's 29, not exactly father time. He's also playing the PK in NJ, and he had more TOI than any forward in hockey by almost 2 full mins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7

Rick Nash is such a likable player-- it's easy to get caught up in the hype of a potential trade.

But if we think with our brains, trading JVR for Nash would be stupid. Let's keep the cap space to fill a real hole, and just watch as JVR breaks out. Chances are he will be a 60+ point player in the very near future. That's good enough for me-- we already have our franchise forward.

The next closest scorer to Giroux on the team was 26 points away. I think the front office sees the 1st line wing as a real hole. Scott Hartnell is a perfect PWF for his 60-65 pts per year, now they want that sniper to compliment Giroux's passing, which is why Parise's name has been popping up. Signing Parise will cost us a similar fortune to Nash, and give us similar output.

I forgot about Savard. He scored 50 once with Savard and 50 once without a passing center. He also had 3 other years where he scored 40+. He didn't need a passing center to make him into a great player.

There are plenty of examples of players that are no longer the same goal scorers in their late 20s. It's not just Kovalchuk. Dany Heatley scored 50 goals twice in his mid 20s and is now averaging 25 goals in his early 30s. Ovechkin isn't the same player at the age of 26. Lecavalier hit 50 at the age of 26 and began his decline at 28.

There's no reason to believe that Nash is going to suddenly evolve into a 50 goal scorer at this stage of his career. Most 50 goal scorers are in their early to mid twenties.

I didn't specify passing center, I'm using that as the example because that's what we have in Philadelphia. Hossa's still a passer. I also didn't say I expected 50 goals. I said I expected 75-85 points, hopefully as high as 90. He'd be the primary scorer on that line, but certainly not the only capable one (like he is now in CLB), so 35g-45a isn't an unreachable goal by any means.
Can't explain Heatley. He did well with Spezza and Alfie no doubt, but disappointed a bit with Thornton in SJ. Do you really expect more than 30-35 goals in a season from him now in MIN? Koivu was also hurt for large chunks this season, doesn't help. Vinny underwent shoulder surgery and wrist surgery the year after he scored 40 last, I certainly think that's hindered him, as well as losing Richards and Boyle, and St. Louis getting a older. Ovi's team is trying to transition to a defensive system that he doesn't fit into at all, and Backstrom missed half the season this year (but was over a point per game player when healthy).

There are usually reasons for these drops offs. You can't just assume that a guy is getting older, so that's why his results drop off. Use Gagne as an example again; we all know how lethal he can still be. He scored 40 twice being centered by Forsberg, dropped off when Forsberg was traded, and his career has been dismantled by injuries. It's not all because he's over 30 now...

And he plays in a defensive system. That can't be denied. He's 29, not exactly father time. He's also playing the PK in NJ, and he had more TOI than any forward in hockey by almost 2 full mins.

The next closest scorer to Giroux on the team was 26 points away. I think the front office sees the 1st line wing as a real hole. Scott Hartnell is a perfect PWF for his 60-65 pts per year, now they want that sniper to compliment Giroux's passing, which is why Parise's name has been popping up. Signing Parise will cost us a similar fortune to Nash, and give us similar output.

I dont think it's necessary to have multiple 70+ point scorers on a team.

I guess it would be nice to have insurance if Giroux ever went down, but as long as we have a deep and balanced attack, I certainly dont see it as a problem.

Replacing Pronger and Timonen are much more pressing issues, obviously.

I dont think it's necessary to have multiple 70+ point scorers on a team.

I guess it would be nice to have insurance if Giroux ever went down, but as long as we have a deep and balanced attack, I certainly dont see it as a problem.

Replacing Pronger and Timonen are much more pressing issues, obviously.

I agree 100%. But the only player who can come close to replacing those two is Suter, and I'm sure every team in the league will offer him something because I think everyone except maybe Pittsburgh will have the money. So when we DON'T get him...we've got to patch the hole and look to fill other needs.

I don't want Nash, but a lot of baloney arguments are getting thrown around against him.

-At 29, odds are that he's past his physical prime as a hockey scorer. But that does not necessarily mean that he's past his statistical prime if he finds himself in a more favorable offensive environment.

-The important thing about team quality is not the raw point totals of certain players on the team. It's about being able to achieve the most one-ice efficiency throughout as much of the game as possible. Adding Rick Nash to a deep forward roster would obviously serve that end (at least in the short term).

The main problem with this trade idea begins and ends with the fact that it's a capped league.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Different sport, but last year the Union's coach said they got rid of a player because of the fans. Joni Pitkanen wanted out because he was booed here. You're naive if you don't think the poisonous attitude fans display towards certain players don't ever play a role in a player leaving.

Wanting out and getting run out would be different things, no? Pitkanen's wish was granted by the Flyers because of his deteriorating play.

If JVR is really delaying his surgery just to avoid a trade from the Flyers, his situation does not appear similar to Pitkanen's at all. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that the Flyers rumored willingness to deal him is generated by sensitivity to the wishes of "the fans".

It's impossible unless Homer holds a gun to Poile's head and manages to get Suter AND Weber for a bag of pucks and some salary dumps. Timonen will likely have to fill in for Timonen, and Coburn will hopefully keep up his playoff beast mode and give us some semblance of Pronger back there.

You can add a puck mover, a PP QB, a nasty defenseman, a leader, or a playoff legend...but only Pronger can encompass all of that. Prepare to be disappointed if you expect a replacement for him by mid-Sept.

Odds of Nash hitting 85-90 pts as soon as he gets planted next to Giroux are slim to none? If you think so, that's your opinion. But this trade gives us a fully developed JvR without the injury issues. Nash has missed 54 games since the lockout. JvR has already missed 51 in his 3 year career. If the asking price is JvR, Mez, and a pick, I jump all over it. And you can go back to allllllllllll the anti-JvR threads, I've ALWAYS preferred to keep him and give him time.

We just explained why trading JVR for Nash straight up was stupid.

Now you're adding Meszaros and a pick?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PALE PWNR

Again who are you replacing Timonen and Pronger with this season?

You clearly aren't.

I'm fairly certain the gameplan is to re-sign Carle this year and maybe another defensemen. Then hope that the additions of Grossmann and whoever else can join forces with a ripening lineup of young superstars in order to make a run at the Stanley Cup.

JVR production per cap hit (assuming it stagnates at hurt levels): 10.82
Nash production per cap hit: 07.56
Nash best production per cap hit: 10.64

DO. NOT. WANT. NASH. AT. 7.8M/YEAR.

It's STUPID to trade JVR for Nash. End of discussion.

At first, the measure is bad. The production doesn't increase as much as the caphit, it isn't straight proportional. A 80 point forward will always cost more than twice a 40 point forward.

Secondly, I have no idea what your numbers mean. "Production per caphit" seems like "Points per Dollar", but that would be 0.000028 point/dollar for vanRiemsdyk, or if you wanted "Dollars per Point" it's 35960 dollar/point. Neither are the numbers you posted.

At first, the measure is bad. The production doesn't increase as much as the caphit, it isn't straight proportional. A 80 point forward will always cost more than twice a 40 point forward.

Secondly, I have no idea what your numbers mean. "Production per caphit" seems like "Points per Dollar", but that would be 0.000028 point/dollar for vanRiemsdyk, or if you wanted "Dollars per Point" it's 35960 dollar/point. Neither are the numbers you posted.

JVR production per cap hit (assuming it stagnates at hurt levels): 10.82 (points per million $)
Nash production per cap hit: 07.56 (points per million $)
Nash best production per cap hit: 10.64 (points per million $)

The problem with that line of thinking is that GMs still want to 'ice the best team available'. You can't just have all contract steals, you also need some talent which you overpay for. There are limited resources (players) and a finite number of minutes to be played. It's a balance every team needs to walk.

That said:
Nash-giroux-jagr (best line in NHL)
Hartnell-schenn-briere
Voracek-couturier-simmonds
Read-talbot-wellwood

According to your model, you could build an awesomely efficient team by bringing in 30 replacement level players and paying them almost nothing.

My model, though it does not factor in extreme scenarios since nothing really works well in extremes, is based around the principle that depth is more important. Depth in the post lockout era has proven time and time again to be one of if not the major factor in deciding both deep playoff appearances and championship caliber rosters.

Some overpaid players will find themselves tacked onto every roster, but limiting the amount of salary per talent, particularly among younger players in a long-term scenario, is a major key in being successful.

It also was never good policy to spend to boost a strength rather than to cover a weakness.

I'm fairly certain the gameplan is to re-sign Carle this year and maybe another defensemen. Then hope that the additions of Grossmann and whoever else can join forces with a ripening lineup of young superstars in order to make a run at the Stanley Cup.

Then the following year go after Weber with Timonen off the books.

At least if I was GM, that's how I attack it.

What are you going to do with all the cap space left over if the only thing you plan on doing is resigning Carle at a similair caphit and signing another defensemen? Let it sit all year? That's not homer or the flyers style. They have so much money coming off the books next year homer can make a big splash and absorb a huge caphit this year go with the same defense and make a bigger splash next year on the extremely high probability that weber is a ufa.